From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V7 #109 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Tuesday, May 8 2007 Volume 07 : Number 109 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... [Scout82667@aol.co] Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... [Scout82667@aol.co] Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... [Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... Scout82667@aol.com wrote: > > Back when that movie was made, they hadn't gotten to the point > of being able to program in the irregularities and anomalies of reality. No, but after the 'nado passes and the couple have ridden it out, why are they not muddy and banged up, clutching their ears and dazed? It's all just too Hollywood cute. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:41:44 EDT From: Scout82667@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... In a message dated 5/7/2007 12:42:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sleeveless@zoominternet.net writes: why are they not muddy and banged up, clutching their ears and dazed? It's all just too Hollywood cute. Yep. Reality doesn't sell. Reality shows sell, but reality, real life, people don't want. Let's put five beautiful young people in a house for a month and call it "reality." The same reason the movie version of SHILOH takes place in what looks like a set L.L. Bean threw up on, and not true to the book--a shack in Appalachia. Poor people aren't sexy, darling. M ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:25:32 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... On 5/7/07, Scout82667@aol.com wrote: Reality doesn't sell. Reality shows sell, but reality, real life, > people don't want. > Well, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. If reality doesn't sell (actual reality, not the in-quotes kind), it's more likely that it's a bit too avant-garde for most movies: plotless, an endless procession of characters, dangling threads every which way, and people just don't behave rationally or predictably. Once you introduce a plot, you're already pretty far removed from reality per se. Another thing is that movies can't have an audience of one. That is, with the possible exception of your most insularly avant-garde (for real this time) projects, some attempt is made to have characters and stories that some audience, however small or demographically unlikely, will be able to recognize (or relate to, in the parlance of our times). That sort of idealization tends to stretch things out: slightly-better-than-average-looking people become prettier, slightly-uglier-than-average-looking people become grotesque, slightly bad folks become evil, etc. Even in movies that preserve a semi- reality-like moral complexity, characters' lives are still vastly more simplified than our own. And they have to be. That said, there's an art to making a good, park-your-brain-at-the-door movie - and _Twister_ lacks it. There were just so many egregiously stupid moments - frankly, starting with the whole concept of tornado-chasers, even if such morons actually do exist - that you never got the chance to, you know, suspend your disbelief. Even a notoriously implausibility-drive-enhanced TV show like _24_ manages to create powerful enough narrative flow and emotional identification to allow people to forget, even minutes at a time, the rampant implausibilities of its narratives and situations. > Poor people aren't sexy, darling. Also: poor people aren't sexy because poverty is their own damned fault, you know. If it weren't - if they were noble poor, heroically suffering their unavoidable fate, as in other and formerly reigning ideologies, then they can be sexy. Not anymore, though. Actually what happens is that if a poor person is sexy, or smart, or heroic, that's just proof they don't "deserve" to be poor - and so, by the end of hte movie, they won't be, or will be in some other way rewarded. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:36:58 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... 2fs wrote: > starting with the whole concept of tornado-chasers, even > if such morons actually do exist Why do you think tornado chasers are morons? (They are not like the ones in the movie, who *were* morons). The work of professional storm chasers is crucial to developing better warning systems, and better forecasting of severe weather. Where would the people of Greenburg be if they hadn't had that 20 minute warning, huh? As for amateur chasers, professional storm photographers, reporters, law enforcement people following storms to report back on them, etc., there are safe ways to do things like that, and some areas of the country in which it is safer to do those things. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 00:00:16 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... On 5/7/07, Jenny Grover wrote: > > 2fs wrote: > > starting with the whole concept of tornado-chasers, even > > if such morons actually do exist > > Why do you think tornado chasers are morons? (They are not like the > ones in the movie, who *were* morons). The work of professional storm > chasers is crucial to developing better warning systems, and better > forecasting of severe weather. Where would the people of Greenburg be > if they hadn't had that 20 minute warning, huh? Key word above is "professional," I suppose. I somehow think there are better ways to track storms than driving around reallyfast cutting across fields in a pickup truck. Even if you are a professional. As for amateur chasers, professional storm photographers, reporters, law > enforcement people following storms to report back on them, etc., there > are safe ways to do things like that, and some areas of the country in > which it is safer to do those things. Such as far, far away from tornados. Problem is with amateurs of all stripes, they let their enthusiasm outdo their sense. Then, I'm one of those boring spoilsports who's appalled at people who blithely risk their lives (which are, I seem to recall, irreplaceable) to do egregiously dangerous things. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 01:51:20 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] In An Unimaginably Ugly Coincidence... 2fs wrote: > > I somehow think there are better ways to track storms than driving > around reallyfast cutting across fields in a pickup truck. Even if you > are a professional. First off, that is not typical tornado chasing behavior, neither driving really fast, nor cutting across fields (or doing anything else that would put you in a position where you could not get out fast or change directions if you suddenly needed to, or that would involve trespassing). Second, what better ways are you suggesting (you know, that would actually work and collect the data needed)? Methinks perhaps you don't really know or understand a whole lot about professional tornado chasing. > > As for amateur chasers, professional storm photographers, > reporters, law > enforcement people following storms to report back on them, etc., > there > are safe ways to do things like that, and some areas of the country in > which it is safer to do those things. > > > Such as far, far away from tornados. Funny boy. > Problem is with amateurs of all stripes, they let their enthusiasm > outdo their sense. Not necessarily. There are many people who do many things they don't get paid to who have a lot of sense (and knowledge) regarding what they do. > > Then, I'm one of those boring spoilsports who's appalled at people who > blithely risk their lives (which are, I seem to recall, irreplaceable) > to do egregiously dangerous things. As I said, there are safe ways to do these things that do not risk your life, and I think it's fairly rare that chasers actually come to harm. Bear in mind that a lot of tornado video footage you see is zoomed way in, and therefore looks like the tornado is closer than it is. Most people, when they actually see a tornado that they do have a chance of getting or staying out of the path of, will do so. Some of the most foolish and dangerous footage I've seen was taken by people in their own yards or homes as one neared or approached their house. They didn't exactly go out chasing that, though. I didn't go out chasing the ones I've seen either, but if I had the opportunity to go out and chase with someone who knew what they were doing, I probably would. Except for one thing. Chasing is 99% boredom and striking out. Driving hundreds of miles, day after day and being lucky to even see one. That I would have a low tolerance for. Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V7 #109 *******************************